BTJustice wrote:AVG sucks. That is why it is free. It is cheap protection for tight asses who don't want to spend money. Simple as that.

For the record, I am not a tight ass, I paid for the AVG Pro.

Secondly, version comparisions is typically not a solid way to look at things. I can say things like, VB 2.0 sucks compared to VB.Net, but is that a fair comparison, I don't think so. We can only look at what the current version of the product is doing, not making statements about a product version from 2 yrs ago.

As I said before, AVG works for me and I am happy with the performance I receive. You obviously prefer another product, and good for you.

Thay my friend is what great about a free society. I have the right to pick what I feel is the best for me, and you have the right disagree.

Brian, it's not directed at you or anybody else. It's just a warning, because when talking about antivirus most people want to defend their choice.
We don't want to start a flaming war, like I've seen so many at Wilders.

Whether you use NOD32, KAV, MCAfee, BitDefender, AVG, aVast and many others .... it's all based on personal preference.
If it runs great on your system and doesn't give problems, well then that's the best. IMHO

jaxgtr wrote:I know, I was just sticking up for the those of us that like free things. Nothng personal was taken.

Brian

jaxgtr,

You not only stood up for those who like free software - you also stood up for those with a good understanding and clear mind which BTJustice doesn't have and here is the proof.

BTJustice claims to be a "computer expert" by mentioning he is a technician. Yet, a halfway decent technicician with some experience should know that Norton slows down every machine because it is resource hungry. If you are low on MB, stay way. Yet, why did BTJustice install it onto his customer's computer? This is something he was supposed to know before without running the risk that his customer cannot return the software because the pouch had been opened. Or was everything just a story as in: Believe Or Not?

Fact is: AVG 7 is a very decent AV and offers daily updates. It depends if installed on Win 2000, XP, 98, ME, Linux, etc. but this was not mentioned; at least I didn't see it. Virusbtn makes here a big difference. It is also a common knowledge that a good e-mail client is another good protection against a virus because plain text cannot do anything - just an attachment or a script inside an HTML file are risky but script execution is mostly impossible. Other attachments can easily be filtered out based on extensions. Everything else is being caught by almost all AVs.

I am a NOD32 user but not because of its AV capabilities but based on performance. There are other official and independent tests that rank NOD32 below some free AVs.

TimothyS wrote:BTJustice claims to be a "computer expert" by mentioning he is a technician.

Actually you are the one claiming I am an expert. All I said was I am a computer technician. There are no expert computer technicians. Only good ones and bad ones. I am glad my customers consider me a good one.

TimothyS wrote:Yet, a halyway decent technicician with some experience should know that Norton slows down every machine because it is resource hungry. If you are low on MB, stay way. Yet, why did BTJustice install it onto his customer's computer? This is something he was supposed to know before without running the risk that his customer cannot return the software because the pouch had been opened. Or was everything just a story based as in: Believe Or Not?

The foremost rule in any business is that the customer is always right. The other rule is that you do what the customer wants you to do (that tends to make money for businesses). The customer insisted I install Norton 2005 which I did. When the customer saw the speed decrease, the customer took my advice and went with NOD32. I already knew Norton would slow the computer down... DUH!

TimothyS wrote:Fact is: AVG 7 is a very decent AV and offers daily updates. It depends if installed on Win 2000, XP, 98, ME etc. but this was not mentioned; at least I didn't see it. Virusbtn makes here a big difference. It is also a common knowledge that a good e-mail client is another good protection against a virus because plain text cannot do anything - just an attachment or a script inside an HTML file are risky but script execution is mostly impossible. Other attachments can easily be filtered out based on extensions. Everything else is being caight by almost all AVs.

You mention the Virus Bulletin but you have nothing else to back up your "fact". If one simply goes to the Virus Bulletin, they will see how poorly AVG has performed on it...